Pat Barry

It's simple. Airbus finances airlines that can't win conventional financing and can't buy from Boeing. Bottom feeders like Spirit Airlines couldn't qualify for much - yet they bought Airbus. Boeing didn't even try, and now Spirit is a loyal, long term Airbus customer.
It's all about financing.

You can't schedule weather and winds aloft - the planes fly at best fuel (unless they are behind schedule and need to go faster) so they typically cruise at the same speed at cruise altitude and arrive at the destination when they get there - and the controllers have to deal with it.

Go sit in a crowded movie theater for 15 hours - probably sitting next to a person who hasn't bathed in days - eat fatty, poor food, sleep sitting bolt upright. Then pretend you are dealing with baggage claim and customs/immigration for an hour or more, then deal with getting a taxi and getting to a hotel.
That's equivalent to flying on an Airbus A380, and less expensive.
Airbus has enhanced the term 'cattle car' with the A380. It looks good in the advertisments but the reality is very different.

The result of airline consolidation is that fares and fees go higher, yet the majors (Delta, UA, AA) hide the bag fees and change fees, all unethical fees, designed to 'hook' a customer. How about the stunt where a passenger arrives early and could go on an earlier flight where seats are available and the majors want a few hundred bucks for the privilege of filling an empty seat earlier? The remaining airlines have no loyalty to their customers, so why should we have loyalty to them?
SW, on the other hand, doesn't hook for bags, and allows a change without a direct penalty (they require that you pay the going rate for the alternate date). SW is an ethical carrier - they don't lie, they don't 'hook, and I like their service. So I skip the others.
As for the fares narrowing, I just had a last minute trip - on Kayak UA and AA were over a grand for a west coast to Little Rock - SW had a senior fare for $330. I'm staying with SW.

Well, I'm one of the 1% that has had a vacuum failure in IFR, and it was a white knuckle experience. I used the whiskey compass to confirm whether the wings were level. It's a long story and I'll skip it, but the gyro driven artificial horizon failed and I had a backup instrument, but what to trust? No horizon, grey outside. The whiskey compass told me that I was 60 degrees wings over and I clicked off the erroneous autopilot, returned to wings level, and I did what we all train to do - I FLEW THE PLANE! I was at 13,500 over 12,200 terrain in Nthn Idaho, so I couldn't descend below as this pilot did, so I knew that Salmon was near and I navigated to Salmon, outbound then on a heading that took me over a valley, and I descended through a sucker hole to VFR below.
I flew the plane!
That's what this pilot should have done, and did when his parachute failed.

Toby - I guess that I am one of the 'old timers' that some of these posters mention. 10,600 hours TT, and ATP and Citation rated. My Twin Comanche has dual Aspens including synthetic vision and G480 and MX20 and a good CIII autopilot.
In a case like this I would have had situational awareness - if I only had steam gauges then I would have been aware of the MEA and terrain in the region and I would have climbed out of the clag or descended below it (as this pilot did). He had a good flying aircraft but lost his navigational ability - he should have flown the aircraft!
If I had a parachute I'd use it if I had a total engine loss but if I had a good flying plane (as this pilot did) I would have flown out of the problem. Remember, the plane has to meet terrain, even with a parachute. The risk of having an out of control aircraft using a parachute landing on a school prevails and flying the plane, maintaining control, is the prime goal. To 'give up' and pull the chute is a foolhardy practi

Toby - I guess that I am one of the 'old timers' that some of these posters mention. 10,600 hours TT, and ATP and Citation rated. My Twin Comanche has dual Aspens including synthetic vision and G480 and MX20 and a good CIII autopilot.
In a case like this I would have had situational awareness - if I only had steam gauges then I would have been aware of the MEA and terrain in the region and I would have climbed out of the clag or descended below it (as this pilot did). He had a good flying aircraft but lost his navigational ability - he should have flown the aircraft!
If I had a parachute I'd use it if I had a total engine loss but if I had a good flying plane (as this pilot did) I would have flown out of the problem. Remember, the plane has to meet terrain, even with a parachute. The risk of having an out of control aircraft using a parachute landing on a school prevails and flying the plane, maintaining control, is the prime goal. To 'give up' and pull the chute is a foolhardy practi

But, Joel, being objective, there are three primary instruments located at the base of the panel. Airspeed, artificial horizon, and VSI, as I recall. Couldn't a pilot use these if (and when) the HSI display in the G1000 (or the steam gauges as a later poster says this plane was equipped with) fails? I mean to say - if the HSI fails is there not a set of primary instruments lower on the panel that the pilot should be trained to use?
I am aware of a pilot who had a scrambling and rebooting G1000 display over Kentucky who pulled the chute in VFR - because the poor dear had his display scrambling and rebooting.
I'm also aware of a Cirrus 22 at Asheville N.C. that was being moved by tug by a ramp boy who neglected to remove the tail chain, and the plane came apart at the front zone of the parachute bay (I have a reliable witness of this).
In my opinion the Cirrus is an unremarkable plane, overpriced, bought by doctors and lawyers because they derive comfort from having a parachute. I'm n